I don't think that's the right reading. At least, that's not how I read it.
> Alison Taylor, a frequent recipient of parking tickets, sued the City and its parking enforcement officer Tabitha Hoskins, alleging that chalking violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search. The City moved to dismiss the action. The district court granted the City’s motion, finding that, while chalking may have constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, the search was reasonable. Because we chalk this practice up to a regulatory exercise, rather than a community-caretaking function, we REVERSE
The sixth circuit has reversed the district court's dismissal that the search was reasonable. Both the sixth circuit and the lower court agree that marking the tire is a search; the lower court dismissed and held that the search was reasonable.
The amended decision says that once the case advances the city can argue that their actions fall under 4th amendment exceptions, but that their current motion did not sufficiently make that argument.
The chalking may be found OK during further proceedings, depending on how the city argued, but at the time that decision was issued it was not.
I was [lightly] researching this a few weeks back and am pretty sure I found that the net effect of the final ruling was that for the purpose of enforcing regulations [any] city could mark tires, and that because it the outside of the vehicle on public property it was not trespass...
> Alison Taylor, a frequent recipient of parking tickets, sued the City and its parking enforcement officer Tabitha Hoskins, alleging that chalking violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search. The City moved to dismiss the action. The district court granted the City’s motion, finding that, while chalking may have constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, the search was reasonable. Because we chalk this practice up to a regulatory exercise, rather than a community-caretaking function, we REVERSE
The sixth circuit has reversed the district court's dismissal that the search was reasonable. Both the sixth circuit and the lower court agree that marking the tire is a search; the lower court dismissed and held that the search was reasonable.
The amended decision says that once the case advances the city can argue that their actions fall under 4th amendment exceptions, but that their current motion did not sufficiently make that argument.
The chalking may be found OK during further proceedings, depending on how the city argued, but at the time that decision was issued it was not.